[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria

Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War

Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile

Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation)

France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies

Trump nominates former Soros executive for Treasury chief

SCOTUS asked to review if Illinois can keep counting mail-in ballots 2 weeks after election day

The Real Reason Government Workers Are Panicking About ElonÂ’s New Tracking System

THEY DON'T CARE ANYMORE!

Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV

Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice

"Terminator" Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities

Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending - What Is It?

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA

F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source: Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 30313
Comments: 394

British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.

The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.

The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.

The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.

The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-75) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#76. To: Destro, robin, christine, ALL (#53)

A shitload of people have died in Iraq and a shit load of people have fled Iraq for other countries as refugess - some say up to 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq.

That's probably true from what I've read.

As long as folks stick to facts, rather than deliberate lies, I have no problem.

I can't speak to the London report on the number of deaths because I have not studied it in part because I know the death toll has been huge so I have not bothered to check one way or the other. I assume it is accurate.

That's an assumption you'd be better off not making. Because the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) is filled with all sorts of problems. I listed SOME of them in posts 4 and 5 of this thread. Problems that for the most part have been simply ignored by the defenders of the study.

The only part of the 9/11 story I accept from the govt is the 'mechanical' ones not the rest - not on the relationship of the 9/11 cell to US intellugence and not what the status of the information the govt had on them before that day.

And I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other on the latter. I have said there are good questions that deserve answers. But that one won't ever get them answered if one start out insisting on nonsense that is easily debunked.

It shocks me you guys don't see what I am accusing you of.

It shocks me that the folks here don't see that I'm actually trying to help them be more credible ... so those other questions about 9/11 can get answered.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-02   23:12:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: robin, Destro, ALL (#54)

The truth is often uncomfortable. This is one of the few forums where it is allowed to be heard.

So can we agree, robin, that the truth is that the collapse of the towers took about 15 seconds, not 10 seconds, and was therefore not a free fall collapse?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-02   23:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Destro, ALL (#63)

I think they and other people who reject science in the name of their religion or ideology are destroying this country.

A good case can be made for that assertion.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-02   23:17:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: SKYDRIFTER, skydrifter (#15)

(if speak about a car;) - I’ll spam about the whole damned street; (if you try to stay put;) - I’ll spam about your feet; (if you start to get cold;) - I’ll spam with all the heat; (if you take a short walk;) - I'll spam about the fleet.

Spam-man!

This is going to bug me all night, I know that song but can't think of it, I know I've heard it a million times! What was the title?

Good job, that was funny!

Diana  posted on  2007-04-02   23:30:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Diana (#79)

Taxman - Beatles.

"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-02   23:32:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: BeAChooser, robin, christine, AGAviator, (#76)

That's an assumption you'd be better off not making. Because the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) is filled with all sorts of problems. I listed SOME of them in posts 4 and 5 of this thread. Problems that for the most part have been simply ignored by the defenders of the study.

BeAChooser, you want to discredit the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) so as to justify the Iraq mission rather then be accurate about the Iraqi death toll.

Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial.

Just because few Americans were killed in Kosovo (another illegal and immoral war by America) does not justify that war either.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-02   23:50:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Dakmar (#80)

Taxman - Beatles.

Of course!

thankyou, I've been driving myself nuts trying to think of it, I can't believe I couldn't think of it. I was thinking "Sandman? No that's not right...".

Diana  posted on  2007-04-03   0:01:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Destro, ALL (#81)

Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial.

That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   0:02:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: beachooser, Destro, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#83)

That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.

He's got a lot oh high-powered company, BAC, whether you approve or not.

OR, conversely, your "consideration" of the official lies as being facts, is immaterial.

Fuck you BAC, you treasonous queer!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-04-03   0:07:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala (#83)

That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.

Boy, did I hit a nerve or what? I am good at that.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   0:15:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala (#85)

BeAChooser, admit that you seek to discredit the report to justify the Iraq mission and the honesty will be accepted. I say this from someone who has defended you on here from those calling for your banning (and will continue to do so even if I disagree with your position).

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   0:27:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Destro (#81)

BeAChooser, you want to discredit the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) so as to justify the Iraq mission rather then be accurate about the Iraqi death toll.

Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial.

Just because few Americans were killed in Kosovo (another illegal and immoral war by America) does not justify that war either.

Good post there, pain in the ass boy!

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-04-03   1:55:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: HOUNDDAWG (#87)

All my posts are good. They just go over your pointed heads sometimes.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   2:08:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Destro (#88)

Well, if you didn't use so many big words, then....

"Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters."

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-04-03   2:15:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#84)

Fuck you BAC, you treasonous queer!

Is this true BAC? Are you a treasonous queer. Because I'm going to stop reading everything you write if this is true. Please defend yourself and prove these charges wrong. I cannot in good faith follow the writings of a treasonous queer.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-03   9:42:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: Destro (#86)

People should just ignore the government as the government lies. But people tend to idolize government and think that their words are important. same with big-media.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-03   9:43:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#90)

I cannot in good faith follow the writings of a treasonous queer.

I don't get the notion of not wanting to read other's opinions even of they are against my opinions.

Those BARF alerts on Freerepublic made me hate those scum even more. Not that I would agree with a someone on t he left, etc - I just find the notion of refusing to read their opinions because they are of the other side a distasteful position. I want to read everything and debate it to the max.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   11:12:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Ada (#0)

Now that Blair is about to leave office, I wonder if people in the British government feel freer to speak out.

I wonder how much Blair's imminent successor Brown has to do with this change. It looks as if the British government is close to freeing through diplomatic means its sailors held in Iran.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-04-03   11:20:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Destro, ALL (#86)

BeAChooser, admit that you seek to discredit the report to justify the Iraq mission and the honesty will be accepted.

The report is an obvious lie.

One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies.

All those who insist it is accurate are discrediting themselves along with any other views they hold.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   15:28:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Destro, Red Jones, ALL (#90)

Red Jones - Is this true BAC? Are you a treasonous queer.

And, Destro, when one bases one's views on lies, this is all that's left to defend oneself.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   15:29:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: BeAChooser (#94)

One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies.

so did ron brown move the wmd to syria or have you concocted a new story?

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   15:34:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: BeAChooser (#94)

One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies.

Then you should be against the entire Iraq war then as well as the war America fought in Bosnia and Kosovo.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   16:14:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, ALL (#95)

And, Destro, when one bases one's views on lies, this is all that's left to defend oneself.

I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   16:15:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#96)

so did ron brown move the wmd to syria or have you concocted a new story?

Ron Brown was killed in Bosnia when his plane was directed to crash into the side of a mountain during a storm. Why Clinton was sending a business delegation to Muslim Bosnia during the war no one knows and it made no sense especially since Ron Brown was under investigation at the time. The Croatian air traffic controller responsible then "committed suicide" by firing a shotgun blast into his face. He felt guilty it seems.

Then stories spread that ROn Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS - it is what I learned a story called a Honey Pot Trap - adding a nonsensical theory to a plot in hopes people will stick to the red flag story and then be discredited as kooks and conspiracy nuts.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   16:29:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Destro (#99)

yes, he was killed to hide a conspiracy that was never shown to exist. and there is another conspiracy to keep this out of the media. google fish breath on LP for 2003. he explains how rin brown was shot the instant the plane went in and there are even pictures to prove this. of course, the pictures were lost, but there is a conspiracy theory to explain this. also, there is an autopsy that proves ron brown died from a gun shot wound, but this has been lost too. there is however a good conspiracy theory to expplain why the report is no longer around. there are now stories that ron brown is now alive but frozen out at area 51. saddams wmd are now stored out at area 51 too.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   16:42:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: Morgana le Fay (#100)

that proves ron brown died from a gun shot wound, but this has been lost too.

Then stories spread that Ron Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS - it is what I learned a story called a Honey Pot Trap - adding a nonsensical theory to a plot in hopes people will stick to the red flag story and then be discredited as kooks and conspiracy nuts.

The plane crash killed Ron Brown more than likely.

The Honey Pot Trap is to get people to focus on the story that makes you look like a wild eyed loon and thus any investigation into a conspiracy is tainted. Ron Brown was not killed by gunshot to the head - but they want you to think that he was so you seem like a loon saying it and thus tainting any question the plane crash circumstances.

See how it works?

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   16:49:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Destro, ALL (#97)

Then you should be against the entire Iraq war

Except it is not a war based on lies.

Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement.

It was still researching WMD and long range delivery systems.

It had not abandoned it's WMD and long range delivery system ambitions as it agreed to do.

It had not come clean about the disposition of the WMD it had had.

Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11.

Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil.

And until democRATS saw political advantage they were all for invasion.

And, regardless of the past, now it is in our vital interests that we not lose.

That we give Iraq every chance to become a successful,western friendly, democratic republic.

That we not allow it to fall into the hands of terrorist supporters.

Even the Senate Intelligence Committee could see this clearly.

Why can't you?

then as well as the war America fought in Bosnia and Kosovo.

I was against that war. Because it was based on a lie.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   17:21:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: Destro, ALL (#98)

I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation

I'm glad to see you hold America in high esteem.

The sad truth is that the attack on Serbia was designed to take the focus off the Cox report and the treason committed by the Clinton administration. The sad truth is that the efforts to brand Bush as satan will only put the folks who committed both of those crimes back in office. Now tell me what's good about that?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   17:25:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: BeAChooser, Destro, All (#83)

That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.

In this country, the citizens are still suppose to rule with their majority opinions, I realize it may be different where you live but there's an old saying here govt by the people for the people, the people are suppose to be the ones making the decisions, not the crooked gangsters/politicians we now have running things.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-03   17:30:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Destro, BeAChooser (#98)

I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.

BAC, can you explain why this was done? Was this one of those instances in which our govt lied because it was for our own good?

Can you explain why the Serbs had to be wiped out and false charges brought against them when in the end it only strengthened the KLA who are notorious drug smugglers and white slavers in Europe and who were in reality terrorising the Serbs all along?

Do you know because this is something I've often wondered about and you know all kinds of things. Thanks.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-03   17:45:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: Destro, Morgana Le Fay, BeAChooser (#101)

The Honey Pot Trap is to get people to focus on the story that makes you look like a wild eyed loon and thus any investigation into a conspiracy is tainted. Ron Brown was not killed by gunshot to the head - but they want you to think that he was so you seem like a loon saying it and thus tainting any question the plane crash circumstances.

I always wondered why BAC was so interested in Ron Brown.

I also used to wonder why anyone would have bothered to shoot Ron Brown in the head when he was going to be dead anyway in the plane crash.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-03   17:50:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: BeAChooser (#102)

Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11.

Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil.

Talk about building a foundation of lies...

You can't possibly believe the stuff you post.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-03   17:53:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: Destro, ALL (#99)

The Croatian air traffic controller responsible then "committed suicide" by firing a shotgun blast into his face.

A correction. The person who did this was the chief maintenance officer (in charge of the portable beacon which went missing and which Aviation Week said could have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain like it did) and he shot himself not in the face (which wouldn't be so unusual in a suicide) but in the chest. And he did it before he could be interviewed about the Ron Brown crash.

Then stories spread that ROn Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS

Not according to the forensic pathologists who actually saw the wound and x-rays and who have made public statements about the matter. These were some of the finest forensic pathologists in the country at the time.

It all started when Captain Kathleen Janoski, head of the AFIP photo documentation unit, took photos at the examination of Brown's body. She exclaimed in a loud voice that there appeared to be a bullet wound on the top of Brown's head. The wound, which is documented in the pictures she took and that are available on the internet, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling", which she says led her to that conclusion. According to Janoski, Colonel Gormley, who was in charge of examining Brown's body, told her to "be quiet" and "not to remark about the wound."

Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was examining another body 2 feet away, heard Janoski's remark and came over to look. Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

Gormley called Lt. Colonel Cogswell, an AFIP forensic pathologist and an expert in gunshot, at the crash site. He asked him to search for something that could cause Brown's head wound. According to Cogswell, nothing was found. Cogswell says that when Gormley called, he told Gormley that it sounded more like a gunshot wound and that "this man needs an autopsy."

Yet, Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, Gormley has himself acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole.

Despite all the above reasons to question the cause of the wound, Gromley ordered no autopsy. He ruled it death due to blunt force trama. He later indicated in various forums that he ruled out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible and the x-rays showed nothing unusual. But as you'll see, this was a lie.

The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage. However, neither Cogswell, who had been involved in more than 100 plane crash investigations, nor Hause, who had been with AFIP for five years, could remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim’s head. Both said that while parts of the plane could certainly pierce the skull during a crash, the resulting hole probably would be left jagged or irregular after the object entered and exited the skull." This hole, however, was not jagged or irregular.

Now here's where it gets even more interesting, Destro.

Janoski has a sworn affidavit saying that six months after Brown's death, she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation.

After talking to Sentell, Janoski says she realized that she had taken slides photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Colonel Cogswell. After looking at the pictures and x-rays slides, Cogswell decided that an autopsy should have been performed and began to say so publicly. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses. He reportedly told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both are contrary to what Gormley was then claiming.

On December 5, 1997, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown case to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.

On December 9, 1997, Lt. Col. David Hause decided to come forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause has stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell are a classic case of "shooting the messenger."

Before joining AFIP, Hause spent two years as division surgeon for the Army’s 1st Cavalry Division, including duty as a surgeon during the Gulf War. He also served as the Army’s regional medical examiner in Germany. After he talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include all AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, had to obtain permission to leave for lunch.

But by then, the photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. And in case you are wondering, Alan Keyes, a spokesman for the AFIP, has acknowledged that the internet photos are legitimate.

On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. This appears to be a clear attempt at "damage control". Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed.

Then, on live TV, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute.

A few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse.

On January 9, 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of ALL its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. According to Cogswell, however, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons cooberated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie.

On January 13, in violation of the gag order, Kathleen Janoski went public. She did this, according to her, for self protection and out of concern for the careers of Cogswell, Hause, and Parsons. Since then she has been interviewed repeatedly and has provided a sworn affidavit regarding what happened (as noted above).

The AFIP now claims that the x-ray film used in the first set of x-rays (i.e., those captured in Janowski's slides) was defective. They say this explains why a second set of x-rays was taken (now the story is that the first set wasn't lost ... just discarded) and why the first x-rays might "appear" to show a lead snowstorm. Janoski responds that the photos she took of other Brown X-rays on the light box do not show any film "defect".

Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, have confirmed that Brown's x-rays are missing from his case file, as well as the photographs of the x-rays that were stored in a safe and the negatives for those photographs. According to Hause, all that remains of the x-rays are the color slides in Dr. Cogswell's slide presentation and the copy of Brown's head x-ray in the possession of the Tribune-Review. Gormley and the AFIP did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley now refers calls to Chris Kelly, who simply says that Gormley will not grant additional interviews.

In a press statement, the AFIP reportedly said that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. Janoski said she was present for the entire examination and did not observe any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue.

Janet Reno told the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists. The review was conducted by the same AFIP personnel responsible for the decision not to autopsy.

Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the Government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a search warrant and were given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated.

The Accident Investigation Report (produced during the second phase of the normal Air Force crash investigation ... the first phase is the Safety Board, which was suspiciously skipped in the Brown crash) presumes that the cause was "accidental". It does not contain anything regarding the opinions of the pathologists about a bullet wound or the evidence (x-rays, photos) cooberating those opinions. Strange, given that the document is to aid lawyers in any legal matters following a crash. In fact, neither the Brown family or other families were ever told about the possibility of a bullet wound. They had to learn about it years later.

Then, the acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap."

However, since all of the pathologists who did examine Brown's body, including Gormley, and all of the pathologists at AFIP with experience in bullet wounds who looked at the photos and x-ray, have now agreed that an autopsy should have been done, this is disinformation ... at best.

He wrote "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies. He wrote "The alleged "bullet fragments" mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." Of course, as has already been pointed out, this is also a lie. Medical examiners did not confirm this finding. The photographer who took the pictures says it is untrue and could not be true given that only that one photo of Brown's heads shows the so-called "defect".

He wrote "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus ... which Gormley himself admitted on live TV.

Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story."

Brown's daughter, Tracey, said that the family hired their own forensic pathologist after the bullet wound controversy surfaced and that one of the key reasons they were satisfied that Brown was not shot is that the pathologist told them there was no exit wound. Janoski has testified, however, that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admits he didn't look for one.

Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-ray slides and wound photos to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory. Fackler said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. He was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole." Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies.

Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired before the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.

Given all the above, Destro, do you still want to claim the allegations of a gunshot are just BS and nonsense?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:42:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#100)

he explains how rin brown was shot the instant the plane went in and there are even pictures to prove this.

Why do you fear the Ron Brown allegations so much? I said no such thing.

there is an autopsy

Why do you fear the allegations in the Ron Brown case so much? There was NO autopsy.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:46:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Diana, ALL (#104)

In this country, the citizens are still suppose to rule with their majority opinions

No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:48:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: Diana, ALL (#105)

I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.

BAC, can you explain why this was done?

Just check out the timing with respect to other disclosures about Clinton and Clinton administration crimes, Diana.

I'm sure you can figure it out.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:49:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: Diana, ALl (#106)

I also used to wonder why anyone would have bothered to shoot Ron Brown in the head when he was going to be dead anyway in the plane crash.

Folks survive plane crashes all the time. This was a low speed impact. The back portion of the plane was even still intact. And in any case, you are avoiding the real issue. The photo, x-ray and what the pathologists say.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:51:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Diana, ALL (#107)

"Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11."

"Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil."

Talk about building a foundation of lies...

You can't possibly believe the stuff you post.

Diana, during the invasion our troops discovered suicide bomb making factories and foreign nationals who said the Iraqis were training terrorists.

We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

Who really has their head in the sand here, Diana?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:57:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#108)

The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage.

The problem with shooting Ron Brown in the head is that the plane is packed and the shooter can't get away as the plane goes down. Even if he pulled a DB Cooper and jumped out he would be landing in an area that would probably kill or cripple him regardless.

Therefore the plausible explanation is that the head wound was a result of the crash. But putting out a flase story that he mayhve been shot makes all who question the crash look like loons.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:01:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#110) (Edited)

No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

Let me know when congress declares war and makes this war legal.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:02:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#111)

Just check out the timing with respect to other disclosures about Clinton and Clinton administration crimes, Diana.

Bush fully supported the bombings over the Republican party's objections.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:03:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (117 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]